IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 134/2021 (Filed on 02-08-2021)
Petitioner : Jose Jacob,
S/o. Sri. K.J. Chacko,
Kudilil House,
Kuruppanthara, Manjoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686603.
Vs.
Opposite party : Kurisinkal Steels,
Muttuchira P.O.
Kottayam Dist.
(Adv. Jose Joseph K. and)
Adv. Sarath P.S.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant on 15-08-2020 had purchased GI chain link having thickness of 3 mm 4”x4” which is manufactured by TATA Company from the opposite party. At the time of purchase, the opposite party made the complainant believe that the said chain link was sold by TATA Company in the measures of sq.ft. and the price for the same per sqft. is Rs.18.5. In order to construct fencing for at a length of 540 sq.ft., the complainant purchased 11 role of chain link from the opposite party. The one role of chain link has a weight of 22.4 kg. When the complainant enquired with Modern Industries Companies at Ernakulum who is the authorized agency of the TATA Company, it is came to the knowledge of the complainant that he was cheated by the opposite party by adopting unfair trade practice. The Modern Industries authorities informed the complainant that the said GI chain link having thickness of 3 mm 4”x4” was sold to the consumers by the company for a price of 143 per kg, which is inclusive of the dealer commission. It is further informed by the Modern Industries authorities to the complainant that they sold the said chain link to the opposite party for the same price. After verifying the invoice, which is issued by the opposite party to the complainant the Modern Industries authorities informed the complainant that the price for the chain link which was purchased from the opposite party only amounts to Rs.35,235/- including the dealer commission of the opposite party. Thereafter on 21-08-2020 a sales representative of the company approached the complainant and after inspecting chain link and invoices informed the complainant that they would take necessary steps to return the excess amount which was levied by the opposite party from the complainant as the price of the chain link. Though the complainant had sent an e-mail to the opposite party on 08-01-2020 demanding the repayment of excess amount, there was no response from the side of opposite party. Thereafter on 15-02-2021 the complainant caused a registered notice to the opposite party requesting the repayment of the excess amount which was collected by the opposite party from the complainant.
It is averred in the complaint that the price for one role of the chain link is only Rs.3,230.2/-. It is averred in the complaint that therefore the total price for 11 role for the chain link is only Rs.35,235.2 including the dealer commission. However the opposite party collected Rs.42,190.63/- from the complainant. Therefore according to the complainant, the opposite party has unauthorisedly and illegally levied Rs.6955.63/- from the complainant and the request of the complainant to refund the same amount became vein. According to the complainant the above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant suffered much mental agony and hardship. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party from the complainant and pray a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,290/- as cost of litigation.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version contenting as follows.
The complainant approached the opposite party purchasing chain link 4x4 of Tata Company as there was no stock, the complainant paid advance of Rs.1,000/- on 22-07-2020 and gave order for the same. The opposite party has specifically shown the rate of the chain link in the receipt given to the complainant for payment of the advance amount. The opposite party brought and supplied 2,200/- sq.ft. of chain link 4x4 of Tata company to the complainant on 15-08-2020 @ Rs.16.11 per sq.ft. The complainant paid Rs.43,042/- including GST and Kerala Flood Cess for the chain link. The maximum retail price of chain link as on 15-08-2020 was Rs.19.93 per sq.ft. It is not correct that the weight of one role of chain link is 22.4 Kg. The weight will vary from roll to roll.
The averments in the complaint regarding the communication between complainant and Modern Industries is baseless. The opposite party is not bound to give the chain link @143/- per kg. It is not the recommended customer price but the rate to be sold to retailers. The averments in the compliant that the opposite party was directed to sell chain link @ Rs.143/ per kg to the customers and opposite party received Rs.6,995.63/- in excess from the complainant is false. It is submitted in the version that the opposite party was always ready and willing to refund the entire amount and requested to return the articles. The opposite party has not received any excess amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 marked from the side of complainant and expert commission report is marked as C1. Jacob Mathew, who is the proprietor of the opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following Points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased 2,200/- sq.ft. of chain link 3 mm 4x4 which is manufactured by the Tata Company from the opposite party on 15-08-2020. It is proved by Ext.A1 that the complainant had paid Rs.35,542/- to the said chain link exclusive of CGST and GST and other taxes. The specific case of the complainant is that though the manufacturer of the chain link as directed to sell the said chain link to the end customers after receiving rate per kg, the opposite party sold the said chain link to the complainant for a rate per sq.ft. It is alleged by the complainant that without selling the chain link for rate per kg and by selling the same for rate per sq.ft., the opposite party has collected and excess amount of Rs.6,110/- from the complainant. However opposite party resisted the complaint by saying that at the time of paying the advance amount of Rs.1,000/- by the complainant, the opposite party specifically disclosed the rate of chain link to the complainant. On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that the opposite party had sold Tata chain link 4x4 to the complainant at the rate of 16.11 per sq.ft. The receipt voucher dtd.22-07-2020 which was issued by the opposite party to the complainant before this Commission and marked by the opposite party as Ext.B2. On perusal of Ext.B2, we can see that there is a writing in blue ink as “102/kg TATA 11/2 (2mm) 14 Nos.
19/50 chain link (4x4) (10G)-11 Roll standard).
Though the opposite party contented that they had disclosed the rate of the chainlike to the complainant at the time of generating Ext.B2 and the same was endorsed on Ext.B2. We cannot see nothing than a writing of 19.50 chain link (4x4) 10 gage-11 role standard. On a close reading of these endorsement with receipt to the chain link we cannot see the price of the chain link per sq.ft. as claimed by the opposite party in the version as well as in the proof affidavit. In order to prove that the retailer of Tata chain link are permitted to sell the chain link per sqf.t role, the opposite party produced Ext.B1. On perusal of Ext.B1, we can see that the same is a chart regarding the price list of the chain link. Though it was recorded in Ext.B1, the price for standard chain link 4x4 is stated for the dealer per kg is 139.2 and for retailer per kg Rs.143.4 and its RCP for kg is 147.6 and RCP for sq.ft 19.93, there is nothing to show that the Ext.B1 was generated whether by the manufacturer of the chain link or by the dealer of the manufacturer. Ext.B1 does not contain any entries to prove that the same was an approved price list for the retailer for the amount as retail price. It does not bears any entry to prove that this is the approved retail price list by the manufacturer or the dealer prevailing on 15-08-2020. Sri. Ranjith R, who is the State Tax Officer (INT) is appointed as Expert Commissioner and filed Ext.C1 commission report. It was categorically reported by the Expert Commissioner that cost of chain link for the end user was fixed by TATA as on 15-08-2020 is Rs.141 inclusive of all tax and other expenses. It is further reported by the expert commissioner in C1 report that though the opposite parties has purchased the product from the authorized dealer in kg, but has sold the same product in sq.ft to the complainant. He further reported that the cost of the chain link as per invoice issued to the complainant by the opposite party is 16.11 per sq.ft. exclusive of tax and at total cost of the chain link is Rs.19.01 per sq.ft., which is inclusive of tax. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the opposite party that they had supplied 2200 sq.ft. of chain link to the complainant @ 16.11 per sq.ft. instead of maximum retail price of Rs.19.91 per sq.ft.
The Expert Commissioner along with its report produced the purchase bill of the opposite party from the Modern Industries Ltd. Ernakulam. On perusal of the said purchase bill, we can see that the Modern Industries .Ltd. had sold 240.700 kg chain link to the opposite party @ Rs.112.88 per kg therefore it is proved that the opposite party sold the chain link to the complainant per sq.ft. rate, though the same was purchased by the opposite party @ per kg rate
Admittedly, the complainant had purchased 11 role of chain link having a weight of 22.4 kg per role. Thus total weight of the chain link which has been purchased by the complainant is 246.4 kg. In C1 report expert commissioner categorically reported that the cost of the chain link for the end user is fixed by Tata as on 15-08-2020 is Rs.141/- per kg inclusive of all taxes and other expenses. Thus the opposite party is only entitled to Rs.34,742.4 from the complainant as the price of the chain link which is purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. It is prove by Ext.C1 that the opposite party has levied Rs.19.01 per sq.ft. from the complainant for a total measurement of 2200 sq.ft. Thus we can see that the opposite party has levied Rs.41,822/- from the complainant being the cost of Tata chain link. Thus it is proved that the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.7278/- from the complainant by changing the selling method of the chain link into sq.ft. rate instead of per kg rate as fixed by the manufacturer of the chain link.
The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice and thereby caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Therefore we allow the complaint and pass the following Order.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6,710/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 15-08-2020 ie. the date on which the complainant purchased the chain link from the opposite party till realization.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and 1,200 as cost of litigation.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date or receipt of copy of this Order.If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of February, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. PresidentSd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.15-08-2020 issued Kurisinkal Steels
A2 – Copy of letter dtd.15-02-21 by complainant to opposite party
A3 – Copy of estimate of show estimate
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of price list of chain link
B2 – Receipt voucher dtd.22-07-2020 by opposite party
Commission Report
C1 – Commission Report filed by Ranjith R. State Tax Officer
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
